Not long ago, the central government made requests for in-camera proceedings for the hearings in relation to Twitter’s challenge blocking of orders by MeitY- Ministry of Electronics and Information technology. Now, even the Karnataka High Court gave the oral confirmation regarding it permitting it as well. Judge Krish S Dixit gave a statement to the government counsel. He stated how is chamber is not large one making accommodation of many very tough, hence it would be an ‘in-camera’ process,’ if required.
As we know, these proceedings mainly take place rather privately, emphasising on neither the public nor the press being there. Moreover, the High Court of Karnataka came up with a notice to the Centre regarding the issue. Reportedly, they listed this particular case for August 25 this year.
Mukul Rohatgi, currently representing the social media company stated the company had got a large number of orders regarding blocking of users’s pages on the platform. He stated how the microblogging sited is ‘obliged’ to carrying out the blocking of these pages as required by the law, though they clearly express ‘freedom of speech.’
Word from the Twitter attorney:
Rohatgi went to specify how the social media platform is also accountable to the people who hold the accounts on Twitter. He stated how none of the users whose account require blocking would receive any intimation regarding how one or more of his tweets on the site could be possibly would be rather controversial. Even Twitter, and the team representing it were informed of the reasons behind the orders. But, he stated, that these orders require the reason to be on record.
Further, he explained how if this process goes on in the case, his whole ‘business’ would come to a halt, which was what he intends to challenge at the moment. As the site filed a petition earlier this month, it clearly stated how it had gone ahead to comply ‘under protest.’ with the orders. In turn, this recent order required the block ingof about 39 URLs on it.
The microblogging site went on to go to the court against the government of the country. Particularly, these were pages that the MeitY revealed regarding the blocking of about 39 URLs. However, this cases failed to reach needs of IT Act’s Section 69A. This can mainly come with such orders to sites like Twitter which showcase attentiveness for India for various purposes.